64th Congress'! 
2d Session J 


SENATE 


/ Document 
I No. 738 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN 
CALIFORNIA 


AN ADDRESS 

READ AT THE NATIONAL POPULAR GOVERNMENT LEAGUE, 
AT THEIR CONVENTION, HELD IN THE CITY OF 
WASHINGTON, D. C., ON JULY 5 AND 6, 1916, 

ON THE OPERATION OF THE INITIA¬ 
TIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL, 

FROM 1903 TO 1916 


BY 

DR. JOHN RANDOLPH HAYNES 

OF LOS ANGELES 





PRESENTED BY MR. PHELAN 
February 27, 1917.— Ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1917 


•JtL 


s 





































SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 382. 


[Reported by Mr. Chilton.] 

In the Senate of the United States, 

March 2, 1917. 

Resolved, That the manuscript submitted by the Senator from 
California (Mr. Phelan), on February 27, 1917, entitled Direct 
Government in California,’^ an account of the operation of the 
initiative, referendum, and recall, 1903 to 1916, by Dr. John Randolph 
Haynes, of Los Angeles, be printed as a Senate document. 

Attest: 

James M. Baker, Secretary. 


ot D. 



DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


The tendency to look upon provisions for direct government such 
as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, as instrumentalities 
involving a new philosophy of government is without logical 
foundation. 

Direct government, by direct action of the people, and indirect 
government, through representatives, are both based upon the same 
political philosophy, namely, popular sovereignty. The only differ¬ 
ence is as to method. Opponents of direct government maintain 
that the people should express that sovereignty only by indirect 
methods through representatives. Advocates of direct government 
hold that the people, in addition to the use of representatives, by 
whom their affairs are ordinarily managed, should also possess cer¬ 
tain instrumentalities, such as the initiative, the referendum, and 
the recall, which will enable them, if at any time dissatisfied with the 
management of their affairs, to direct, overrule, or even discharge 
their servants. 

Broad-minded thinkers in all ages have expounded the doctrine of 
the rule of the people. Dante used almost the same words as those 
found in our American Declaration of Independence, ^‘Governments 
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.’^ Such 
views, however, have made headway very slowly against the aristo¬ 
cratic doctrine that the function of the people is to obey rulers chosen 
by God to govern them. The aristocratic philosophy has, however, 
been very much damaged in latter years and is seldom openly avowed 
at present. No sovereign to-day, not even the Czar of Russia or the 
Sultan of Turkey, can say with Charles I, “I am responsible to God 
for my actions as ruler, but to no one else.^^ Governmental bodies in 
all civilized countries, with the single exception of the United States 
Supreme Court, admit that they are responsible to and must render 
an account to the people. 

There are still men in America and elsewhere who at heart are 
absolutists in opinion, who do not reaUy believe in the principles 
expressed in the Declaration of Independence, who think with Alex¬ 
ander Hamilton that the “people are a great beast,” who believe that 
popular government is a failure and shoidd be abolished. The writer 
is inclined to believe that it is this distrust and fear of the people that 
is at bottom the inspiration of the fight against the provisions for 
direct government, the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. 

If such is the case, however, it is seldom expressed openly. 
Ex-President Taft and Senator Lodge, for example, who have become 
leaders and spokesmen in this fight, protest that they do not attack 
the principles of popular sovereignty, but only the direct methods of 
expressing tliat sovereignty. They say that the indirect forms of 
governmental machinery, derived historically from Teutonic sources 

3 



4 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


and known as the representative system, result in orderly, dignified, 
deliberate, wise legislation and administration of public affairs. 
They say that the direct form of governmental machinery, derived 
liistorically from Greek and Latin sources and generally referred to 
as direct government, using the initiative, referendum, and recall, 
results in disorderly, hasty, passionate, and foolish legislation and 
administration. They insist that they believe in popular govern¬ 
ment, but maintain that representative government is ‘^popular 
government,” and that direct government is ‘^mob government.” 

The friends of direct government, on the other hand, hold that 
under a representative system where provisions for direct govern¬ 
ment are lacking the power exercised by governmental bodies of 
deciding when and where and upon what subjects the people are to be 
allowed to render a decision actually nullifies to a large degree the 
theoretical sovereignty of the people. Where the provisions for 
direct government exist, no governmental bodies can prevent the 
people, providing a sufficient number, by signing petitions, demon¬ 
strate that the matter is of general interest, from demanding at any 
time that the question of the retention of a public servant or the dis¬ 
position of any public matter whatever, whether previously acted 
upon by a representative body or not, shall be submitted directly to 
the people for final decision. 

It is a great relief to practical men to find that the opponents of 
direct government, openly at least, admit the general philosophy 
favoring popular government. It means that abstract and meta¬ 
physical discussion concerning the location of sovereignty which 
burdened the thoughts of the eighteenth century need not burden us. 
Since methods only are involved, we have merely to study the facts. 
Hundreds of smaller communities and many States have used these 
instrumentalities of direct government for 3 ^ears. If in practice 
these instrumentalities work badly, the zeal of their supporters 
can not prevent their ultimate rejection not only by communities 
strangers to their use, but, most of all, by those which have tried 
them and found them wanting. On the other hand, if they work well, 
all the zeal and eloquence of their detractors will not finally prevent 
their univerasl adoption. No more useful work can be performed 
therefore than the careful investigation of the actual workings of these 
provisions where they are in use. The writer has been asked to tell 
the experience of California. 

Before entering upon this particular phase of the subject, however, 
it may be permitted him to call attention to one fact that the op¬ 
ponents of direct government will find difficult to explain away, the 
fact that the growth of direct government has moved along the 
lines of geographical continuity. If direct government provisions 
worked badly in practice, it would be natural for neighboring com¬ 
munities and neighboring States, of communities and States so af¬ 
flicted, to shun these ‘‘evil doctrines,” as Mr. Taft calls them. Yet, 
as a matter of fact, it has been just through the adoption by neighbor 
that the great spread of direct government has taken place. A still 
more difficult nut for opponents to crack is the fact, to which I feel 
sure no single exception can be found, that not a single State or com¬ 
munity after adopting these provisions of direct government has later 
discarded one of them. 


DIEECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


5 


California Adopts the I and R. 

On October 10, 1911, the people of California placed in their State 
constitution provisions for the initiative, the referendum, and the 
recall. Direct government was not considered an experiment by 
them for they had , used it in most of their city governments for 
many years and had observed its successful working in Oregon, our 
neighboring Commonwealth to the north. The vote of the people, 
therefore, was decidedly favorable. The amendment providing for 
the initiative and referendum was adopted by a popular vote of 
168,744 for to 52,093 against. The recall amendment was bitterly 
opposed because of the inclusion of the judiciary; nevertheless, it car¬ 
ried by a vote of 178,115 for to 53,755 against, receiving the largest 
majority of any of the 23 amendments submitted except one elimi¬ 
nating appeals in criminal cases on technical grounds. 

The people of California have now dwelt under the direct forms 
of government for 6 years; the people of Los Angeles under local 
forms of direct government for 14 years. What is their opinion about 
direct government ? I can say conservatively that it is one of prac¬ 
tically universal satisfaction. Out of several hundred newspapers in 
the State I know of but one, ^^The Los Angeles Times,” which con¬ 
sistently opposes these provisions. Its editorials have been widely 
used in the East in the fight against direct government; but its in¬ 
fluence in its home State may be best described by sa 3 dng, what every¬ 
body here knows to be the fact, that candidates for public office regard 
its antagonism as an asset and its support as a liability. No party ol¬ 
faction in this city or State dares to propose the abolition of these pro¬ 
visions for self-government. Politicians formerly opposing them are 
now careful to conceal the fact. Californians feel that, due to these 
provisions, all the affairs of the people are in the hands of all the 
people (and in California women are considered people) all the time, 
and this is what we believe is meant hj democracy. 

objections versus facts. 

So much for the general and affirmative opinion of the residents of 
the State. What answer does California experience give to the spe¬ 
cific objections which have been made, namely, that direct govern¬ 
ment results in— 

1. Too many elections. 

2. Hasty and unwise judgments. 

3. Demoralization of representative bodies. 

AL-. Taft, for example, in a press interview referring to a scries of 
lectures on the initiative, referendum, and recall, at a number of 
colleges, said: 

I want to show the young men of this country the absurdity of having weary armies 
of voters tramping frequently to the polls at the call of would-be reformers in a struggle 
for incessant changes in the laws. I want to emphasize the fact that this doctrine is 
an evil thing. I want to preach sanity and sense. 

Senator Lodge, in a recent work on ‘"The Democracy of the Con¬ 
stitution,” says that the initiative and referendum ‘‘work suddenly 
in the heat of passion.” In his book he uses liberally in referring to 
these jH-ovisions such phrases as: “the momentary impulse,” “the 
passion of the hour,” “as quick in response as a hair-trigger pistol 


6 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


and as rapid in operation as a self-cocking revolver.” In one place 
he says that these provisions would break down the representative 
principles in government.” 

These quoted remarks which I have cited because of the eminence 
of their authors, are fairly representative of the criticisms expressed 
by lesser figures in the fight against direct government. Are these 
criticisms true? Do the weary armies of voters in California need 
relief from the frequent tramping to the polls ? Let us see. The 
people of California have used these provisions in State affairs in the 
general elections of 1912, 1914, and 1916, all of the general elections 
which have been held since the adoption of direct government in the 
State. They also used them in the special election of 1915; but this 
election was called by the governor for the purpose of submitting 
certain measures passed by the legislature to the people. There has 
been no State election, therefore, called .because of these provisions, 
and the weary army of voters have not been required, on account of 
State matters, up to the present moment, to take one single extra 
step on account of “this evil doctrine.” In Los Angeles, the city 
where the recall provision originated and the city often referred to as 
the “craziest” municipality in the country in the matter of direct 
government, there have been held in the 14 years under direct gov¬ 
ernment, because of the existence of these provisions, four elections, 
two of which were initiatives, and two recalls. 

Surely four elections in 14 years do not unduly weary the army of 
voters tramping to the polls. But Mr. Taft objects to the incessant 
votes for new laws caused by these provisions. Let us see. In the 
six years of direct government in California in State affairs the voters 
have had submitted to them 34 measures through direct-government 
provisions, of which 24 were initiative, 10 referenda, and no recalls. 
The people of Los Angeles in the 14 years orf direct government in 
city affairs have voted upon 27 measures because of our system of 
direct government. Of these, 16 were initiative, 9 referenda, and 2 
recalls. These numbers wiU not unduly strain the mentality of 
American citizens, certainly not those of the citizens of California. 

LODGE AND TAFT SHOULD GET THE FACTS. 

Instead of conforming to the primary demands of modern scholar¬ 
ship that facts must first be gathered and theories later worked out 
by induction therefrom, Mr. Taft, after the manner of the medieval 
scholastics, evolves his theories from his inner consciousness and 
takes no trouble to find out the facts. Senator Lodge falls into the 
same error. His epithets of “passion” and “haste” may apply to 
the “deliberations” of representative bodies; they do not apply to 
the workings of direct government. The conditions under which 
legislation was enacted in Athenian assembhes—whose errors and 
follies are now used to point a warning against the instrumentahties 
of direct government—resemble much more closely the conditions 
existing in our representative assemblies than those to be found in 
the operation of direct government. Like our representative assem¬ 
blies, the Athenian assemblies were characterized by crowds and 
confusion, noise, haste, and wild excitement. 

A friend of mine, a member of the California Legislature for many 
sessions, told me that in addition to the evils of vote trading, or “log- 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


7 


rolling/' very inadequate consideration is given tlie texts of proposed 
legislation. Thousands of bills are introduced at the convening of 
the legislature; hundreds are sometimes passed in a few hours on tlio 
last night of the session, amidst the most indescribable excitement 
and chaos, members voting wildly for or against bills which they have 
not read and of whose character they have only the vaguest conce|)- 
tion. Another friend, one of the most prominent men in California 
and for many years a member of the State senate, told me that in 
1913 the legislature enacted into law 830 bills, and that, although ho 
worked all day and until 2 o’clock in the morning regularly, and was 
an attorney and a very rapid worker, he was able to gain a fair 
Imowledge of only about 100 bills and an exact knowledge of onl}^ a 
very few. Of the 700 others which passed both chambers, not to 
speak of the thousands of bills which failed to pass, he was compelled 
in voting to depend entirely upon the judgment of others. Another 
very honest and able member of the State senate, now a judge of the 
superior court of this county, once introduced a constitutional amend¬ 
ment which, because of his high standing, passed the legislature with 
little opposition. Later, however, certain features were brought to 
his attention, and when it was submitted to the people his conscience 
compelled him to go before the people and ask their rejection of the 
measure he had introduced. 

These men were unusually able and honest, but it is humanly 
impossible for representatives under the conditions prevailing in 
representative bodies to give the masses of legislation precipitated 
upon them careful or thorough investigation. The “calm delibera¬ 
tion” of representative assemblies is a figment of the imagination. 

now THE PEOPLE REALLY ACT. 

How do the people do in matters of direct government? Their 
methods may be illustrated by the election of 1914, when the people 
of California voted a ballot containing 48 measures, one of the 
largest, if not the largest, ballot in the number of measures ever 
submitted in American history. The people in this election took 
their responsibilities seriously. The discussion of them began in 
the newspapers, at home, and in business establishments when the 
petitions first began to circulate. For many months before the 
election these measures were given large space, with speakers on 
both sides, on the programs of men’s and women’s clubs in the State. 
More than 100 meetings discussing them were held in the school 
houses of Los Angeles and hundreds more in the private homos 
of the city. This was going on throughout the State. A teacher 
informed the writer that sc&ol children talked about them on the 
playground, some of them saying that their parents spoke of nothing 
else at their meals. Finally, on the day of the election, husbands and 
wives together, with their sample ballots in their hands, marked 
after weeks and months of study, repaired to the polls, and in the 
privacy of the voting booth registered their decision. I have never 
seen any haste or passion in the operations of direct government in 
California; and I haven’t seen anybody else who has seen any. 

Senator Lodge says the provisions of direct government “would” 
break down the principle of representative government. The use 
of the subjunctive verb “would” instead of the indicative verb 


8 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


‘4ias’' is significant. The instrumentalities of direct government 
are in use in 17 States and in about 300 municipalities, besides many 
counties. Yet Senator Lodge does not say that direct government in 
Oregon or California or Los Angeles or Des Moines has broken down 
the principle of representative government. Such a positive concrete 
statement might invite disagreeable demands that he produce his 
evidence, therefore he says that it woulddemoralize representative 
government. Well may we say, as the naturalist Fabre remarked 
on another occasion, ^^With all these mountains of theor}^ and 
assertion, can we not have a few small facts 

IMPROVES THE LEGISLATURE. 

What are the facts? While the conditions prevailing in repre¬ 
sentative assemblies makes it impossible for representatives to give 
proposed legislation the thorough and dispassionate study which 
the people give to those few matters which they take under their 
direct control, nevertheless direct government, by bringing the 
people’s servants under a more strict responsibility and a more 
direct control, has greatly improved the work of representative 
assemblies. Says Gov. Hiram W. Johnson, of California: 

We have ended that old practice—^when anybody wanted anything from ^ the 
legislature they came to somebody somewhere in a hotel or barroom or a financier’s 
office—^they now go to the legislature itself. We have restored the Government to 
the people and conscience and hope to the Government. 

In each generation new ideas are compelled to withstand con¬ 
temptuous language and appeals to prejudice on the part of men of 
high public standing. The highest dignitaries of state and church 
vied with each other in heaping abuse upon Darwin because of his 
works supporting the theory of evolution. Harvey, the discoverer 
of the circulation of the blood, in his old age declared that not a man 
in England 40 years of age had accepted his theory, that blood circu¬ 
lated. But Messrs. Taft and Lodge and David J. Hill, and other 
opponents may as well learn now as later that appeals to prejudice 
without appeals to fact will not very long stop the progress of direct 
government. 

In California not an election has been held or a measure acted upon 
in which a study of the vote of the people will not be welcomed by 
believers in direct government. For lack of space wo can not describe 
in this paper the results of all the elections. Because of the wide¬ 
spread criticism of our ballot in 1914, on account of its length, it 
containing, as has been stated, 48 measures; and because it placed a 
strain upon the intelligence of the people greater than has ever been 
the case before or is likely to be again, it may be well to select this 
year for an examination of the decisions of the people. The state¬ 
ment widely circulated by opponents of direct government that this 
great number was due to our provisions for direct government is 
inexact and somewhat misleading. Of the 48 measures, 27 were sub¬ 
mitted by the legislature and only 21 in consequence of our provisions 
for direct government. Of these 17 were initiatives and 4 referenda. 
In 1912 the total number submitted to the people, including both 
direct-government measures and those submitted by the legislature, 
was 8; in 1915, 11; in 1916, 7. In 1912 the number of direct- 
government measures submitted, excluding those submitted by the 
legislature, was 6; in 1914, 21; in 1915, 2; in 1916, 5. 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


9 


THE ELECTION OF 1914. 

Clearly another ballot of the dimensions of that of 1914 is unlikely. 
But the friends of direct government are perfectly willing to permit 
the fate of direct rule to stand or fall by the showing of that election. 
Although the people voted upon 48 measures and for candidates for 
about the same number of officers, their action was characterized by 
extraordinary wisdom and discrimination. The writer does not 
claim that the people make no mistakes, but he claims that they make 
a very much smaller percentage of mistakes than does the average 
State legislature. It must he admitted that the people acted with a 
somewhat excessive conservatism in rejecting a number of good 
measures proposing new and radical changes; and this, in the opinion 
of the writer, is the only vahd criticism which can ])e made of the 
workings of direct legislation. In the four elections in which provi¬ 
sions for direct government have been used in State elections in 
Cahfornia, 74 measures have been submitted. Of these 40 were sub¬ 
mitted by the legislature and 34 (24 initiatives and 10 referenda) 
originated from the people. Of the 74 measures submitted, 32 carried 
and 42 were defeated. 

I AND R IS CONSERVATIVE. 

Wherever direct legislation has been used, whether in the east or in 
the west, or in Switzerland, the only fault that can be charged against 
it is a somewhat excessive conservatism. Tliis can not be helped; 
it is characteristic of the action of large bodies, which move slowly, 
but fortunately with safety. The writer feels that the voters in tlio 
election of 1914 without ill results might have acted favorably upon a 
number of new proposals initiated by the people, which they actually 
rejected, for example, the measures providing for prohibition, the 
eight-hour law, the right of tax exemption of certain classes of prop¬ 
erty by local communities looking toward the introduction of the 
single tax, the empowering of communities to condemn property in 
excess of that actually used in works of improvement. 

AU these, however, propose radical changes from the present sys¬ 
tem, and it is the duty, as weU as the privilege, of their proponents to 
educate the people to their advantages over the present system. In 
many cases, moreover, reformers, while educating the people, would 
serve their causes well by redrafting their measures. The eight-hour 
law, for example, in the form submitted made the eight-hour day of 
labor universal and was considered even by some labor leaders to be 
too drastic. 

Space prevents even mentioning the long list of excellent laws and 
constitutional amendments passed by the people in that election. 
Prize fighting was eradicated, in all probability forever. Legislative 
statutes agamst this evil in the past merely opened the way to end¬ 
less litigation m the courts. The people, through the initiative, set¬ 
tled the question by an amendment to the constitution, and the prize¬ 
fight fraternity, knowing that the decision was final, immediately 
closed up their affairs and left the State. For many years efforts to 
secure a usable Torrens land-title law, which would enable the seller 
of realty to procure his certificate of title direct from the State for a 
nominal fee, failed because of the influence of the title insurance 

S. Doc. 738, 64—2-2 


10 


DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


companies with the legislatures. Through the initiative a practical 
working law was enacted by the people which will save them many 
millions of dollars. 

While the people consider the acts of their legislators subject to 
their revision, they at the same time give these acts the benefit of 
every doubt. This is shown in the case of the 1914 election by the 
fact that of the 31 measures whose texts originated in the legislature 
(27 voluntarily submitted and 4 forced upon the popular ballot by 
the referendum) only 8 were rejected; while of the 17 initiatives 
originating outside of the legislature, 13 were rejected by the people 
and only 4 were approved. 

VOTERS DO DISCRIMINATE. 

While some good measures failed because of them radicalism, 
not a single vicious measure passed of a number that were submitted. 
The skill with which the voters threaded their way between Scylla 
and Charybdis may be illustrated by citing a few measures. The 
radical, or at least new, measure providing a ballot for absentee 
electors was rejected; on the other hand, the reactionary measure 
denying in bond elections the ballot to nonproperty holders was also 
rejected. The prohibition measure abolishing the liquor industry 
was rejected; while an initiative of the saloon men, forbidden an 
election on the liquor question for eight years, was also rejected; 
a third measure, granting an additional year’s grace to the manufac¬ 
turers of wine, in case of the passage of a general prohibition measure, 
was adopted; a good measure for regulating investment companies 
was approved; a bad measure on the same subject, initiated to confuse 
the voter, was rejected; and so on in a large number of measures 
intended by the promoters to delude the voters, in not a single instance 
were the people fooled. We have already explained the reason. 
The people studied these provisions for months ahead and, while 
intensely interested, they were not swayed by passion or any undue 
excitement. 

AS AN EDUCATOR. 

From an educational standpoint the initiative and referendum have 
been worth their cost a thousandfold. They have acted as a sort of 
great popular university to stimulate the intellectual faculties of the 
people. They have made the individual less selfish, more thoughtful 
of the welfare of others; they have given him a new feeling of social 
solidarity. 

The people in that election, as has been said, did indeed manifest 
wonderful wisdom and discrimination in deciding the 48 measures 
submitted to them; but the advocates of direct government can 
rightly claim that the election was a remarkable demonstration of its 
value, if the people had mistakenly decided every one of those meas¬ 
ures. For the essential thing is that the people voted. 

In the presidential election of 1912, 673,527 ballots were cast in 
California for electors of the various presidential candidates. If the 
same rule held in California now as prevailed in California before the 
adoption of direct government, the vote in the “off year” Sta?te 
election of 1914 would have reached at most 300,000 to 400,000 bal¬ 
lots. But under the stimulating and awakening effects of direct 


DIEEGT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


11 


government the showing was far different. As against the 673,527 
ballots cast for all candidates for President in 1912, the vote in 1914 
for one of the amendments (prohibition) reached a total of 890,317, 
and several others received nearly as many. Many voters waited in 
line for hours to secure an opportunity to cast their ballots. Under 
direct government the people realized the fact that '‘public affairs’" 
are their “private affairs” in a sense which was never true before. 
Oregon has had precisely the same experience, and this is the crux 
of the whole question of direct government. That it produces effi¬ 
ciency is true; but that merit is merely incidental to its greater value, 
that it arouses the people to take an active part in their affairs. 

That government is not necessarily best which is freest from im¬ 
perfection in operating details; that government is best in which 
each citizen is intensely alive to every social interest. John Stuart 
Mill well says that a malevolent despotism is to be preferred to a 
benevolent despotism; for the malevolent despot will awaken the 
people to life in defense of their rights and hberties, while a benevo¬ 
lent despot, if there ever was one, would lull them to sleep, to stag¬ 
nation and to civic death. 


IN LOS ANGELES. 

Since the name of Los Angeles, more than that of any other large 
American city, perhaps, has been associated with the provisions for 
direct government, it may be permitted to inquire whether they 
have proved a success or not in that municipality. Does the ex¬ 
perience of Los Angeles show, in the first place, that these provisions 
become disturbing factors in social and industrial hfe ? The experi¬ 
ence of Los Angeles does show that private citizens here do take a 
more active part in affairs of the city than is the case in most com¬ 
munities; but we do not regard this as an evil. It is the lack of this 
participation by the private citizen in public affairs that has been 
the source of most of the evils which have characterized American 
municipal government. The supposition, however, that these pro¬ 
visions result in continual strife and bickering is wide of the mark. 
In the 14 years of their use in Los Angeles there have been filed in 
all under these provisions, 34 petitions. Of these, 9 proved insuffi¬ 
cient on being checked up; 25 were sufficient—were submitted to 
the people, 12 carrying and 13 meeting defeat. This surely does 
not indicate an excessive degree of disturbance 

AS AFFECTING BUSINESS. 

Do these provisions injure business and retard the material growth 
of the city ? In the first decade of their use the Federal census showed 
that Los Angeles had outstripped all other large American cities in 
the percentage of population, of business, and of building construc¬ 
tion. It is now the largest city west of St. Louis. 

Do these provisions hamper the honest official in his administra¬ 
tion of public affairs? In the 14 years, Los Angeles has held two 
recall elections. Three recall petitions have been filed, but one 
proved insufficient when the signatures were checked and was aban¬ 
doned. In the other two cases, Comicilman Davenport was recalled 
by a large majority, and Mayor Harper resigned before the election 


12 


DIRECT GOVERNMEXT IX CALIFORX^IA. 


occurred, realizing that he would be recalled. Rumors of threats to 
recall are, it is true, rather common; but no attention is paid to 
them ordinarily, either by honest officials or by the people gener¬ 
ally. As has been said, in the 14 years it has been found possible in 
only two cases to secure sufficient signatures to bring about recall 
elections. The great value of direct government consists not so 
much ill its use as in its possession which, like the gun behind the 
door, renders its use unnecessary. 

AS TO EXPEXSES. 

What of the expense? Of the 25 measures submitted to ballot 
by petition, 21 were decided in elections called by the council for 
other purposes and cost nothing. In tlie 14 years of direct govern¬ 
ment but four special elections have been due to that fact. One was 
an initiative ordinance prohibiting saloons, which was overwhelm¬ 
ingly defeated. Another initiative was instituted by the proprietors 
of cafes to permit dancing in establishments where liquor was sold 
and was defeated by a vote of 2 to 1. The other two were for the 
recall of the officials already mentioned. The total cost of the four 
special elections due to these provisions of direct government has 
amounted to perhaps $30,000. As against this expense they have 
saved the city millions of dollars. The giving away of a river-bed 
franchise was, on one occasion, prevented by the threat to use the 
recall. This franchise was appraised by President Ripley, of the 
Santa Fe Railroad, as worth $1,000,000. On another occasion there 
was prevented by the use of the referendum the sale by the council 
for $500 of a franchise which was not only conservatively estimated 
to be worth $500,000 to the recipients, but yielded to a private cor¬ 
poration possession of the only practical route for our proposed 
municipal railway to the harbor, for which purpose its value could 
scarcely be overestimated. On the one hand, we have the expendi¬ 
ture for special elections of some $30,000; on the other hand, we have 
the saving to the people in these two instances alone of more than 
$1,500,000. A member of a ^Anachine” council once confessed to 
me in a burst of confidence that the amount of money saved to the 
people of Los Angeles through the fear of the recall, was, to use his 
expression, “incalculable.” He said, “The boys fear it and hate it 
venomously.” 

AS MORAL SAFEGUARDS. 

As moral safeguards the people of Los Angeles value these pro¬ 
visions even more highly than as financial safeguards. Under the 
Harper administration the people not only considered that their 
property interests were menaced, but what was much worse, their 
children were threatened with demoralization through the wide open 
maintenance of establishments of vice. The people were not com¬ 
pelled to wait for the expiration of the officials’ term; they were not 
compelled to take the matter into the courts for an indefinite period 
of litigation; they found that their affairs had fallen into worthy 
hands; possessing the power of the recall, they discharged their 
unsatisfactory servant and cleaned house. 

It is charged that few people vote on measures and that therefore 
such legislation constitutes government by the minority. So far as 


DIBECT GOVEENMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


13 


the experience of Los Angeles is concerned this claim is not borne 
out by the facts. As we have already seen in the case of State 
elections, the percentage of votes cast for measures as compared with 
votes cast for elective, officials is high and steadily growing higher. 
In the city general election of 1909 the average vote for initiatory and 
referendary measures was 27,354; the vote cast for all candidates for 
mayor was 37,255. The vote for direct measures, therefore, was 73 
per cent of that cast for mayor. This is a high percentage, especially 
when we remtober that the vote for mayor almost always greatly 
exceeds that cast for other officers. In 1911, however, when with 
a larger population and because of an unprecedentedly hitter cam¬ 
paign the vote cast for mayor has risen to 137,255, the people did 
not neglect the measures submitted on the same ballot, and we find 
the average vote upon these initiatory and referendary measures to 
be 109,255, or 79 per cent of the vote cast for mayor. Subsequent 
elections have shown an increase even over this percentage, in the 
case of very important measures the percentage approximating that 
of the vote for the highest office on the list. 

The people are clearly interested in measures; but supposing it were 
true that on account of popular indifference measures are sometimes 
passed by an actual minority of the total electorate, would it be either 
wise or just to disfranchise the active and conscientious portion of our 
citizens because of the neglect of the franchise by the lazy and 
indifferent element ? And if we did so, we could not limit the principle 
simply to matters of direct government. Officials are elected every 
day by minorities of the vote cast and very small minorities of the 
total electorate. If direct legislation is to be done away with because 
popular indifference sometimes permits a decision upon measures by 
a minority of the electorate, by the same rule popular election of 
officials will be abolished from the earth. 

The people of Los Angeles are satisfied with direct government. In 
the past when corporation-controlled councils at various times refused 
the people of Los Angeles direct primaries, refused them a utilities 
commission, refused them permission to vote upon new charter pro¬ 
visions suited to the city’s growing needs, then it was that the peoiile, 
through the power of the initiative which they possessed, brushed 
aside their servants who had assumed to themselves the character of 
bosses and enacted their sovereign will into law. By means of these 
provisions the people of Los Angeles have, and practice, the right of 
self-government. 

SAN FRANCISCO. 

The experience of San Francisco has been similar to that of Los 
Angeles. Space prevents its consideration here. It may be per¬ 
mitted, however, to say that in the last election, November 7, 1916, 
the people of San Francisco voted upon 31 measures including 7 State 
constitutional amendments, and even the San Francisco Chronicle, 
a very reactionary paper and opposed to the principle of direct 
legislation, admits that the people voted very intelligently. 

I have added as an appendix to the paper a record of all state-wide 
measures voted upon by the people of California since 1911 and of the 
initiative and referendum measures voted upon by the people of Los 
Angeles since 1908. The records refute absolutely the claims of the 
enemies of direct government. 


14 


DIRECT GOVERNMEXT IX CALIEORXIA, 


THE OPPONENTS OF DIRECT GOVERNMENT. 

For a quarter of a century the writer has been actively interested 
in the subject of direct government. He has journeyed to other 
vStates and to other nations in order to study at first hand the work¬ 
ings of the initiative, the referendum and recall. Nowhere has he 
found any ground for criticism except as has already been mentioned. 
The people are inclined to be too conservative. Everywhere he has 
found the opposition to direct government comes *from the same 
classes. First, those who know nothing about it; second, those w^ho 
are constitutionally opposed to anything new'; third, politicians, w^ho 
are against it w'hen it first comes struggling into notice and are for it 
later w'hen everybody favors it; fourth, those whose self-interest is 
threatened by it. 

It is useless to argue w'ith those w'ho oppose it from self-interest. 
It is hated by public utility corjiorations because it prevents them 
getting what they want from representative bodies. It is hated by 
the liquor interests, w'ho usually exercise enough influence with 
representative bodies to prevent them from putting the prohibition 
cpiestion on the ballot; but wdio, under the provisions for direct 
government, are unable to prevent the prohibition element from 
forcing it to a vote through the initiative. 

Those constitutionally opposed to the new^ are difficult to persuade. 
They say that the system of government which w'as good enough for 
.Washington and Lincoln is good enough for them; assuming that 
because Washington used the stage coach and oxcart in his time that 
he w^ould refuse, if living to-day, to use the steam railroad and electric 
telegraph; disregarding moreover, the deciaration once made by him 
that the mark of a free people w'as their ability to alter their forms of 
government at will. Direct, democratic government arose first in 
small communities w'here public affairs w'ere conducted in mass 
assemblies. When communities grew into nations it became impos¬ 
sible for all the people to assemble in one place to conduct their 
affairs and for lack of suitable machinery for popular gov^ernment 
under the new conditions, autocracy arose and long prevailed. The 
representative system w'as an exceedingly valuable invention to 
destroy autocracy and restore government partially to the people. 
But representative government has always possessed glaring defects. 
Under it the citizen is compelled to vote for that party or candidate 
wdiicli represents his view's upon, say, three out of five important 
issues before the people, and misrepresents his view's upon the other 
tw'o important measures. He is compelled to vote against that 
party or candidate w'hich misrepresents his view's upon three of the 
five measures and represents his view's upon the other two. To be 
obliged to choose between such alternatives as these, w'hich Americans 
are compelled to do continually, is manifestly an exceedingly ineffi¬ 
cient method of determining the popular w'ill. 

The initiative, referendum, and recall are new' and improved 
mechanisms of government w'liich permit the people of a great city 
or State or nation to express explicitly and directly their w'ill as in 
the old days of mass assemblies, but wdthout the passion or excite¬ 
ment of those gatherings or the necessity of the people all assembling 
in one place. They are free also, as has been pointed out, from the 
haste, excitement, and improper inffuences which characterize our 
representative assemblies. 


Appendix. 


VOTINGS ON MEASURES IN CALIFORNIA SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE INITIATIVE 

AND REFERENDUM. 

[Note.— The initiative and referendum amendment to the constitution was adopted, along with 
20 other progressive amendments, at the special election held Oct. 10, 1911. The vote stood 168,744 
yes, to 52,093 no. The State-wide recall submitted in the same election was adopted by a vote of 178,115 
to 53,755.] 

GENERAL ELECTION, NOV. 5, 1912. 

1 [Total vote for presidential electors, 673,527.] 


For. 


Against. 


Submitted by the legislature. 


1. Amendment providing for a safe marketing of irrigation bonds.. • 

2. Amendment for free textbooks in elementary schools. 


307,199 128,411 

343,433 171,486 


Proposed by initiative petition: 


1. Amendment permitting city and county governments to consolidate. 

2. Law appointing a “State racing commission” (in effect, a law repealing the 

act against race-horse gambling). 

3. Amendment for local homo rule in taxation. 


174,076 

149,861 

169,321 


280,465 

353,070 

243,959 


Acts of the legislature submitted by referendum petition. • 


1, Law creating the office (appointive) of county registrar of voters.. 

2.. Law fixing salaries and duties of proposed new office, county registrar 

3. Law fixing salary of above in counties of the third class. 


145,926 
135,305 
142,729 


255,051 

254,327 

246,818 


GENERAL ELECTION, NOV. 3, 1914. 
(Total vote cast for governor, 926,754.] 


Submitted by the legislature. 


1. Amendment abolishing the appeal to higher courts of civil and criminal 

cases upon merely technical grounds... 

?. Amendment permitting public bonds or interest thereon to be paid at any 
place inside or outside of the State. 

3. Amendment exempting from taxation educational institutions of collegiate 

grade. 

4. Amendment permitting State, county, or mimicipality to condemn neigh¬ 

boring property or land for public purposes. (Cities condemn 10 miles 
beyond boundaries)... 

5. Amendment exempting from taxation until 1935, vessels of over 50 tons 

burden. 

6. Amendmentpermitting Alameda County (Oakland), to vote 11,000,000 bonds 

for World's Fair purposes. 

7. Amendment authorizing municipalities to own and operate public utilities. 

(Previous provision limited; this took all limits off). 

8. Amendment providing that when a city acquire lands outside its boundaries, 

it shall pay taxes to the county thereon. 

9. Amendment authorizing municipalities and counties to exempt from taxa¬ 

tion for local purposes in whole or part, personal property of certain kinds.. 

10. Amendment permitting adoption of preferential ballot system of election in 

party primaries, etc.. 

11. Amendment increasing as.sembly pay roll expenses. 

12. Amendment establishmg home rule principle in adoption of mmiicipal char¬ 

ters... 

13 . Amendment authorizing governor to call extra sessions of district counts of 

appeal..-•••••:.:- 

14. Amendment giving legislature increased control of irrigation, reclamation, 

and drainage districts. 

15. Amendment permitting assumption by county officers of certain municipal 

functions.... 

16. Amendment changing home-rule amendment; grants municipalities juris¬ 

diction in all local affairs without need of specifying them in the city charter. 

17. Amendment giving State railroad commission power to fix public-utility 

rates in municipalities.... 

18. Amendment permitting irrigation districts to own stock in foreign corpora¬ 

tions ...:.-.;... 

19. Amendment empowering State railroad comrnission to fix value of a con¬ 

demned public utility upon request of a municipality. 


378,237 
306,195 

331.599 

259,192 
359,176 
390,833 
231,274 
344,432 
267,318 

240.600 
87,315 

285,338 

203,674 

335,047 

261,219 

284,7o7 

291,665 

349,684 

291,836 


182,073 
206,479 
293,721 

307,155 

301,909 

202,128 

278,129 

216,612 

375,634 

294,265 
494,272 

226,679 

322,891 

216,805 

225,530 

214,312 

260,589 

185,168 

244,379 


15 






































16 DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 


Votings on measures in California since the adoption of the initiative and referendum —Con. 

GENERAL ELECTION, NOV. 3, 1914—Continued. 


20 . 

21 . 

22 . 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 
27. 


1 . 

2 . 


3. 


4. 

5. 

6 . 

7. 

8 . 

9. 

10 . 


11 . 

12 . 

13. 


14. 

15. 

16. 
17. 


1 . 

2 . 

3. 

4 . 


Submitted by the legislature—Continued. 

Amendment changing method of election of, and procedure in, constitutional 

conventions. 

Amendment authorizing legislature to establish minimum wage for women 

and minors. 

Amendment for direct election of United States Senators. 

Resolution calling convention to revdse State constitution. 

Rond issue, $3,000,000 for additional State buildings in Sacramento. 

Bond issue, $1,000,000 for State buildings in San Francisco. 

Bond issue, $750,000 to improve State P'air Grounds at Sacramento. 

Bond issue, San Francisco Harbor improvements. 

Proposed by initiatke petition. 

Amendment abolishing poll tax. 

Amendment enlarging deposits of public moneys in banks by broadening 

the kinds of security by banks to State.. 

Amendment for city and county consolidation and annexation with consent 
of annexed territory, for cities of 175,000 population and up (proposed by 

San Francisco and Los Angeles). 

Amendment for consolidation of cit}’’ and county government, limited by 
county lines, of cities of 50,000 iiopulation and up (proposed by city of 

Oakland). 

Amendment for State-wide prohibition. 

Amendment suspending operation of prohibition, if adopted as above, imtil 
Feb. 15, 1915, as to sellmg liquor, and imtil .Tan. 1, 1916, as to manufactur¬ 
ing it. 

Amendment prohibiting for 8 years any State election prohibitmg the sale, 

transportation, or manufacture of intoxicating liquors. 

Amendment forbidding voters not on the tax assessment roll to vote at bond 

elections... 

Bond issue of $1,250,000 for proposed State buildings at Los Angeles. 

Bond issue of .$1,800,000 for completion and construction of buildings for 

University' of California. 

Law for universal 8-hour work day. 

Law abolishing professional prize fighting: permits bona fide amateur boxing. 
Law regulating investment companies (Blue Sky law proposed by the in¬ 
vestment companies). 

Law establishing the Torrens land title system... 

Law for 1 day of rest in 7; Simday law. 

Law for dnigless practice. 

I.aw permitting absent electors to vote. 

Acts of legislature submitted by referendum petition. 

Red Light abatement act... 

Blue Sky law, regulating investment companies (referred by investment com¬ 
panies) . 

Act for nonsale of game. 

Act creating State water commission for control of appropriation and use of 
waters... 


For. 

Against. 

271,896 

274,325 

379,311 
404,283 
180,111 
294,728 
300,028 
301,764 
408,644 

295.109 
190,969 
442,687 
267,717 

257.110 
259,721 
167,589 

405,375 

374,487 

236,573 

324, .553 

248,112 

318,221 

293,901 
365,536 

287,18.5 
524,781 

448,648 

226,688 

3 . 5 . 5 , .39 4 

4 : 3 . 5 ,701 

312,193 
285,796 

337,951 

320,302 

413,020 
282,692 
413; 741 

2.39,332 
560,881 
327,569 

249,509 
3-59,757 
290,679 
223,217 
244,855 

3.53,812 
224,84(i 
457,890 
462, . 3 . 5.5 
390, . 33.3 

402,629 

352, .821 

343,80.5 
353,295 

2.88,084 
361,446 

309,954 

301,817 


SPECIAL ELECTION, OCT. 26, 1915. 

[Ordered bj'legislature for the submission of measures only.] 


Amendments submitted by legislature. 


1. To increase term of superior court judges from 6 to 12 years. 

2. Term of judges filling vacancies.. 

3. Rural credits: to permit the State to loan its credits to private pei-sons and 

corporations. 

4. Regulating deposit of public moneys. 

5. Requiring bond issues to be carried by two-thirds vote. 

C. Permitting cities to condemn land for park purposes. 

7. To permit legislature to adopt new taxation system. 

8. Exempting churches from taxation when admission is charged for enter¬ 

tainments. 

9. County charters.. 

Acts of legislature submitted by referendum. 


47,229 
124,610 

124,247 
92,981 
121,210 
92,048 
42,158 

94,460 
85,571 


1. Act extending the principle of “nonpartisan’’ elections to Slate officers 

2, Act establishing “nonpartisan” ballot in State primaries. 


112,681 

106,377 


21.3,067 
125,124 

132, .320 
1.51,845 
127,160 
155,786 
201,597 

168,171 
152,697 


156,967 

151,067 





















































DIRECT GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. 17 


Votings on mieasures in California since the adoption of the initiative and referendum —Con. 

GENERAL ELECTION, NOV. 7, 191G. 

[Total ballots cast, 1,045,858.] 


Submitted by legislature. 

1. Bond issue of $15,000,000 for completion of State highway system. 

2. Act amending the State highway law of 1909 empowering the State advisory 

engineering board to equalize among counties the interest burden of high¬ 
way bonds. 

Proposed by initiative petition. 

1. Ajnendment prohibiting any member of legislature from holding any other 

civil office of profit under the State during his term of office. 

2. Amendment prohibiting manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors; to take 

effect 1920.... 

3. Amendment for partial prohibition; abolishes saloons, ijermits importation 

to individuals at residence only in 2 gallon lots or more, permits manufacture 
and export of wines, etc. 

4. Amendment for single tax on land values... 

Acts of legislature, submitted by referendum petition. 

1. -\mcnding act to primary law permitting voters to declare party affiliation 
on election day instead of at the time of registration. 


For. 

1 Against. 

542,239 

137,107 

483,151 

152,910 

414,208‘ 

2:30,260 

436,639 

538^200 

461,039 

260,332 

505,783 
576,533 

319,5.59 

349,723 


Use of the initiative and referendum in Los Angeles. 

[The initiative and referendum provisions of the Los Angeles city charter were adopted in 1903.] 



Date of 
election. 

Yes. 

No. 

Initiative. 

Slaughterhouses. 

Dec. 5,1904 



Unlawful in city. 

6,360 

7,772 

Unlawful, eighth ward. 


4,182 

5' 053 

Unlawful, sixth ward. 


2,256 

5,265 

Unlawful’ except certain sections of sixth and eighth wards. 


8,805 

8,349 

4 ; 023 

No saloons.....*.... 

Juno 2,1905 

15,487 

Crematories (petition insufficient).. 


Creating board of public utilities.. 

Dec. 7,1909 

16,626 

9,696 

Dice-shaking ordinance (petition insufficient). 



Dice-shakmg ordinance amended.!. 

Dec. 7,1909 

12,637 

16,997 

Municipal newspaper. 

Dec. 5,1911 

58,134 

43,937 

No saloons.T. .... 

.do./.. 

32,283 

88,395 

For aqueduct investigating board... 

May 28,1912 
.do. 

16,564 

15,697 

Improving Pacific Avenue Harbor Boulevard... 

11,412 

20,415 

Municipal visiting nurses. 

Juno 1,1915 

47' 325 

25,420 

Two-platoon fire department. 

.do.... 

64,854 

21,397 

.Titney bus.. 


34,647 

46,021 

37,554 

Two-platoon fire department... 

.do. 

19,681 

Aqueduct water to outside. 

.do. 

20' 694 

30,507 

Do ... 

.do . 

17'516 

31,938 

Telephone bonds. .. 

.do. 

22, 851 

30,807 
39,038 

T)aucing in cafes . 

Oct. 21,1916 

20; 510 

Referendum. 

South Park Avenue franchise ordinance. 

Dec. 7,1109 

10,633 

12,908 

15,798 

Dance halls (insufficient). 

Dance halls amended (insufficient). 

Telephone r.ates. 

.do . 

14,129 

Dance halls (insufficient). 

Tjicen‘?e ordinance . .......j ... 

June 30,1910 

15,698 

18,488 

9,042 

Park salary ordinance (insulRcienl). 

Park salary ordinance amended (insufficient). 

VlcipfriP-licrht. ... .. 


8,961 

rJrnmrA crirrlpr rni 1 nnlinnilOft .. 

Dec. 5,1911 

Sl,7'10 

23,309 

18,883 

Tubereulin milk-test ordinance_ ___ 

May 28,1912 

13,899 

Franchise regulating ordinance.. .. 

21,055 

11,662 

Jitney bus (insufficient). 





Recall, Sept. 16, ICOJ^. 

*. P. Davenport, council sixth ward: 

Davennort... 

Houghton. 

E. P. Ford, council first ward (insufficient). 

4. C. Harper, mayor: 

Wheeler. 

Alexander... 


1,083 

1,837 


12, .381 
14,032 


O 











































































>.v 

'". i-.'V, ‘ 

■ 




1 


■ -U* • .•• ‘ * ^ 

s • 

• ♦ I ^ - 

• * « # 

*1 


' f\ • 


9 





. <. 


I 


■n 


f 


A 

4 




’ ' » .’ I 


* 


» 


I 

1 


* 


‘ S 


.r . ” ■ 

. ■ . ‘ ' > 

• I 


I 

■ s 

. .It *' 

t* 




• \ 


« 


, 4 


■V 

• l« 








• * .4 


v:;. 




* % ' 

« 

\ ■ 




* .1 

,4^, . V 




r 


'Ml;: ■ • 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


m 





0 028 001 682 2 




1, 


• \ 


•vV 


'U '• 


.• V-. 




• * \ 






r *' ' 



S' ^ ■• 

«*M ' ■ 





. ' >• * r 


f - 


• v> ■ 

I • 

' •■'.--Va 


,►. 



' i 



*-v- 


\* 




4, ■ 


*\ > 
: ', IV 




} ... 


V, 


t H • 
»' • • 

*• • :.-v 


'i 


Si 

«.. 

:iiL 


•iJ 


' ' * { 











